Home Judges/Courts Complaints Corruption Dirty Tricks Used by the Crown Prosecution Service


Dirty Tricks Used by the Crown Prosecution Service PDF Print E-mail
Written by Stephen Roberts   

An old man was attacked in the street in broad daylight by a thug armed with a knife. The Police arrested the victim of this brutal knife attack. The old man was innocent; indeed he was the victim of the crime not the offender. The incompetence of the Norfolk Constabulary in arresting the victim of a crime instead of the offender is mind boggling.

During the investigation it became very clear that the Police had arrested the victim. It was also very clear that they had no evidence to prosecute the case. But, the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service could not endure the embarrassment of admitting their mistake. So, rather than release the old man with an apology, they chose to dig themselves in deeper and deeper by continuing to progress the case through the system.

The Crown only had one independent witness. She made a written statement to the police within hours of the incident in which she clearly stated that she did not see an assault and did not see a knife. The Police and Crown Prosecution Service then based their case on the fact that the knife was never found, and so the thug that attacked the old man could not have had a knife. But, the same independent witness, in her same written statement, described seeing the thug in the company of two unidentified males between the time of the knife attack and the time the Police arrived on the scene. These two males were almost certainly members of the same gang as the thug that attacked the old man. They could easily have removed the knife from the scene. In any event the crime scene was clearly not sterile, and thus the fact that no knife was ever found is of no probative value whatsoever.

It is shocking that the Crown Prosecution Service would make any attempt to prosecute this case with no evidence. It is a waste of the taxpayer's money, and it is heaping yet more injustice on the victim. But yet, once they had stubbornly refused to act sensibly for so long, they could not now back down without losing face. Each day that passed made it more and more embarrassing for the Crown Prosecution Service to admit their mistake. They had a childish reluctance to admit their incompetence. Meanwhile the old man, the true victim of this knife attack, languished in prison on remand.

Then, when the Custody Time Limit was almost up, and the Crown Prosecution Service could not delay the trial any longer, they offered the old man a deal. CPS said that they would “offer no evidence” if the old man would agree to be the subject of a 5A Restraining Order. If the old man insisted on a trial, even if acquitted at trial, he would still be forcibly made the subject of the same 5A Restraining Order. In addition the Crown Prosecution Service threatened to destroy a cherished family heirloom unless the old man acquiesced to their unconscionable demands. This is not a meaningful choice: This is blatant extortion. The old man selected the option of no trial, and hoped to be able to rectify the situation later.

Frank FergusonAfter release the old man tried to deal with the Crown Prosecution Service complaint process. It soon became abundantly clear that CPS had no intention of rectifying this abomination of justice. Indeed, CPS has a well oiled process designed to frustrate any valid complaint. Frank Ferguson, the Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor, had the audacity to say that the old man could have insisted on his right to a trial. What choice was that? If the case had gone to trial the old man would either have been convicted or acquitted. In either case he would be sentenced to a 5A order. Yes, the sentence for being innocent would be the same as the sentence for being guilty.

To put this into perspective: The 5A Restraining order is a de facto suspended 5 year prison sentence. If the old man really had done everything that he was falsely accused of, and was found guilty at trial, the sentencing guidelines call for a 4 year sentence. So, even though the Crown Prosecution Service failed to prove their case, and indeed had no evidence to present at trial, they were able to use extortion to do more damage to the old man's life than if he were fairly convicted. And why? Just to save face for the Crown Prosecution Service!

To read the whole story, and see the evidence for yourself, just follow this link

Send Feedback to Webmaster.